national examples of sfm c&i processes and outcomes ... · criteria and indicators for...

Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Managementin the Caucasus and Central Asia

Mati Valgepea

leading specialist of forest statistics coordinator of forest registry

data management department development project

Estonian Environment Agency Estonian Ministry of Environment

National examples of SFM C&I processes and outcomes, lessons and recommendations

Estonia

Personal experience

Responsible for C&I and other international and national SFM reporting for Estonia since 1999.

Editor of statistical yearbook „Forest“ and other statisticalpublications in 1999-2011.

Responsible for the section of information systems’ development in Estonian Forestry Development Programs and coordinator of several related development projects.

Member of the team of specialists for Monitoring of SFM (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe)

C&I of SFM in Estonia 1991-1998

After the regaining of independence dramatic changes in mentality, society, economy and policies took place.

Dramatic changes also in forestry:NEW – ownership, stakeholders, public debate, economicmodel, policy setting etc.

Main goal – (re-)integration as independent state tointernational processes.

Preparation and accession to international organisations and processes including Ministerial Conference on the ForestProtection in Europe (MCPFE).

Concept of SFM with applications was taken over as it appeared and usedto cope with changes as:- new paradigm;- framework;- toolbox (including Pan European C&I system).

Ministers responsible for forestry engaged country into MCPFE processsigning declarations and committing to resolutions. SFM concept wasintroduced and incorporated into Forest Act, Development programs, policy implementation measures.

Signing of Lissabon Resolutions by

the Minister of Environment of Estonia Mr Villu Reiljan in 1998


MCPFE C&I for SFM was taken as granted and reporting startedaccording to international set (first publication in 1998).

Shortcomings in statistics and in datamanagement systems appearedinstantly despite the strong history of systematic forestry data collection.

Estonian Forest Policy (adoptedIn 1997) included section on information systems stating theestablishment of coordinatingcentre, emphasising the quality of dataand need to connect available resourcedata with data on biological diversity.


Underestimating of growing stock volume before the use of National Forest Inventory

Changing of growing stock volume in Estonia


127 131

196

260284

458 454 458483

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1942***1958**1975**1988**1994**2000****2005* 2010* 2014*

mln m3

Start of NFI

Before After

3 important decision were made to fill the gaps:- concentrated efforts to collect and publish forest

statistics, statistical yearbook since 1995;- establishment of the sample-plot based forest

inventory (first results appeared about year 1999);- establishment of the National Register for

Accounting of Forest Resources in 1999 (stand-wise forest inventory data).

+several new inventories started:- Woodland Key Habitat Inventory,- Inventory of old-growth forests,- Estonian Forest Conservation Area Network Program,

etc)


REAL IMPLEMENTATION OF FOREST POLICY TARGETS ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS STARTED DEDICATION OF RESOURCES ON SPECIFIC TASKS

Efforts to elaborate national C&I system for SFM starting from the basis of Pan-European one started as voluntary process in 1998 with the aim tocompile Estonian Sustainable Forest Mangement Standard (ESFMS). Process was active with participationof major stakeholders. In 1999 National Forest Certification Working Group decided to rely on FSC principles and criteria.

Although the ESFMS was ready by 2000 it wasnot formally used at national level and laterbecame the starting point to nationalforest certification schemes for FSC and PEFC.

There is no formally approved national set of C&I in Estonia and Pan-European C&I of SFM remained as main framework for reportingand international communication –second publication was relased in 2002.


Identifying the probleem with better quality of statistics from NFI.:Several measures were taken to supress the illegal fellings which started toincrease in 1996-1997 when private forest ownership quickly increased. Situation was taken fully under control in 2002-2003.


The development works on information systems continued:- NFI was used for multitude of new tasks (resource use analysis,

biodiversity, land-use and biomass reporting etc) and became themajor source in reporting;

- Forest register became fully functional set of integrated GIS-servicesfor forest admnistration, forest owners and public;

- Publication of widened range of statistics of better quality;

- WKH and EFCAN inventory resultsbecame available

and were used to adjust forest policyapplications.

Development works to enhancethe C&I for SFM at national levelstopped although reporting toGFRA and MCPFE (Forest Europe) continued according to international sets.


Better statistics, information and analysis allowed to reassess results of thepolicy efforts and set new aims with better precision.

Some definite measurable targets (quantitative indicators) were agreedafter the fierce negotions among stakeholders in the Estonian ForestryDevelopment Program until 2010 (EFDP 2010) e.g. :- 10% of forest area should be strictly protected, - maximum allowable (sustainable) cutting level

was set at 12.6 million m3.

Discussions concentrated more on limited number of topics, otherremained in the hands of relevant experts. Quantitative targets in EFDP2010 were carefully monitored and widelydiscussed.

C&I of SFM in Estonia 2008-…

The efficiency of administration and optimization became the key-words: with ever scarces financial and human resources the main task has beenmaintaining the capacities for reporting and further development of ICT systems (better services).

Better target setting wasclearly needed: Estonian ForestryDevelopment Plan until 2020 includes the list of indicatorswith base and target values(natural revival of indicators).

Yearly EFDP achievement reportswere compiled since 2012 and results discussedwith stakeholdersin National Forestry Council.


EFDP process is slowly and naturally transformedto include national C&I of SFM

Development of 2 most widely discussed indicators in Estonia: - minimum share of strictly protected forests and - maximum sustainable cutting levels.


Indicator level

Share of strictly protected forests from total forest area (%)

1997 2002 2011

Status 3 7,8 10

Target 4 10 >10*

* guarantee the better representativety of different forest types

Indicator level

Felling volume (million m3)

1997 2002 2011

Actual volume of fellings 5,7 11,5 9,1

Maximum allowable cutting level* 7,8 12,5 12-15

*level set in Forestry Development Program documents

External challenges with growing influence on forest sector (policies): - climatic change (carbon trading), - renewable energy targets, - bioeconomy etc.

create new challenges to forest sector (policies) resulting among otherissues in increasing and new reporting and assessment needs, therefore: - data management tools and systems must be flexible with possibilities

to adapt;- national and international reporting (incl C&I based processes)

capacities should be maintained.

There is still no plan to elaborate formal national set of C&I for SFM although Estonian Forestry Development Plan includes its basics.


Lessons learned:

- Full commitment to the integration of SFM principles into policies, tools and practices during the years of transition was right choice;

- Conscious investment into human resources, innovative ICT solutionsand well-established information management is crucial;

- Establishment of participatory process and involvement of stakeholders has been tricky but guaranteed balanced choices.

Challenges/suggestions:

- We have reacted quite late in many cases, more proactive approach isneeded (innovation and flexibility) but balanced with commitment overlonger period:BE COUREAGEOUS TO FACE THE TRUTH BUT CAREFUL IN FINDING THE SOLUTIONS

- Wish to approach all areas at the same time with limited resorces wasunsuccessful, concentrated and well-targeted solutions/measuresproved to be the right approach: DO LESS BUT PROPERLY

- Several good ideas remained undone or half-realised due to the lack of commitment, resources and cooperation: PLAN CAREFULLY WITH LONGER PERSPECTIVE IN MIND

Challenges/suggestions:

- We failed to create national C&I for SFM in Estonia and sticked to thesolution to guarantee the overall good level of informationmanagement thus we are able to safeguard national and International reporting needs and concentrate our national efforts on country-specific issues: FIND YOUR OWN WAY BEARING IN MIND WIDER NEEDS

- It has been hard to find good solutions for all emerging situations(without good data and analysis), sometimes it has been on trial and error basis. Cases where policy aims were clearly discussed, formulatedand realised with commitment proved to be successful: CONNECT POLICY TO REALITY, INFORMATION AND ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS HELP A LOT

Thank You!

Contact:

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

national examples of sfm c&i processes and outcomes ... · criteria and indicators for...

Documents